Plan for Palomar Retreat Draws Criticism

An Orange County church wants to build a 560-acre retreat and conference center for upwards of 1,000 people in a pristine valley atop Palomar Mountain--a proposal that on Thursday received a thrashing from its neighbors and a reserved, if not cool, reaction from the county’s Planning and Environmental Review Board.

The project, proposed by Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa, calls for 34 dormitories, cabins, kitchens and other buildings; two swimming pools; three athletic fields; two basketball-tennis courts; a 10-acre man-made lake; an observatory, and parking for 414 automobiles.

The three county staff members who make up the Planning and Environmental Review Board--which airs proposed projects for the first time--said they had no objection to the mountain site being used for church-sponsored camping activities, but each expressed reservations about the size and scope of the Calvary Chapel proposal.

“It’s a little ambitious for the area it is in,” said PERB member James Chagala. “We may have a project that is more than this area can accommodate.”

George Ravenscroft, chairman of the Palomar Mountain Planning Organization, was more blunt, characterizing the proposal as a “motor lodge” with amenities inconsistent with the tranquil mountain environment.

“Where would we all go for peace and quiet if Palomar Mountain were to become a grand recreation center?” he asked. Other critics said that if the project was approved, Palomar Mountain eventually would evolve into a developed recreation center similar to Big Bear or Lake Arrowhead near Los Angeles.

Robert J. Brucato, assistant director of the Palomar Observatory, said the proposed retreat center has little resemblance to a wilderness camping experience for church youth. “It’s important for kids to go out camping, but this isn’t camping--this is Club Med,” he contended.

The planning review board gave developer Michael Needham 11 months to return to the board with an environmental impact report on the project. But Needham said after the meeting that the EIR already is 40% complete, and he expects to go back to the board for the next level of review by January or February.

“I didn’t hear anything today that I didn’t expect to hear” involving criticism of the project, Needham said. And, he said, there are no plans to scale down the proposal because of the criticism.

Complaints about the project ranged from increased fire danger, noise and traffic to the tainting of the mountain’s well water supply and the effect that its night lights would have on Caltech’s observatory three miles away.

Needham said there would be no lighted night activities outdoors, only minimal outdoor lighting for safety, and that all the buildings would have blackout curtains to reduce the possibility of light pollution.

He said the church is sensitive to the light problem because it wants to build its own “substantial research facility” in the form of its own, albeit smaller, observatory.

He said that although the conference center could handle as many as 1,023 visitors and staff members, it seldom would exceed 40% to 60% of that capacity. To that, Brucato responded: “If they’re only going to use 50% of the facility, then why build something twice as big as you think you’ll need?”

The project is on the same south slopes of Palomar Mountain’s Jeff Valley and is similar in concept to one proposed in 1968 by a Rancho Santa Fe developer who was issued a building permit before strict environmental review laws were adopted in California. That developer didn’t build the project at the time but tried to proceed with it two years ago, arguing that the permit he was issued 16 years earlier was still valid. The county’s Planning Commission agreed, to the outrage of mountain residents, who took the matter to Superior Court, where a judge denied the permit. That developer sold the property to Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa earlier this year.

The more recent proposal is not without its supporters. A handful of ministers from San Diego-area churches testified Thursday that San Diego County needs a large youth camp to handle 100 or more campers. Currently, they said, their youths are bused to the Los Angeles area for outdoor experiences.

One of the supporters, the Rev. Ed Smith, pastor of Calvary Chapel in Encinitas, said: “I believe the mountains surrounding Southern California are for the enjoyment of everyone living in Southern California, not just the exclusive enjoyment of those fortunate to live there.”

Byron Lindsey, chairman of the Mountain Defense League, countered: “The plan, in a vacuum, isn’t obscene. It’s a nice plan, a nice concept. But it’s definitely at the wrong place. We would not only lose Jeff Valley, but it would redefine (development) mountain-wide, and it’s absurd to think that it wouldn’t.”

Needham said during his rebuttal: “If I was in their place, I would say exactly what they said. But we are scrutinizing every detail.”

PERB member Karen Whalen said the environmental impact report should include not only the more obvious issues of water, visual and traffic impact, but whether the project would be growth-inducing. And she asked that the EIR also consider alternative projects, including a retreat center that would fall within the valley’s existing zoning density, which calls for one dwelling unit for every eight acres.